Which one to go for - Fue or Fut?

[VK1]

Hi everyone. Been reading the forum for several months after deciding to do something about my hair loss. I'd say I'm a Norwood 3 on the hair loss scale, hair line recession creating an island of hair in the front. Crown has no visible loss, donor area in the back and sides is good. I'm 32, fit and healthy, don't smoke and a light drinker. Currently using branded Propecia and Rogaine. Hair loss has stabilised.
Everything I've read suggests I'm a perfect candidate. I now have to decide on Fue or Fut. I did have an online consultation which estimated 2200 grafts.
Fut seems to have a better yield with the bonus of saving cash, downside is the possible strip scar showing.
Fue although more costly will allow a shorter haircut, this could be beneficial if I lose more hair. Shorter hair cuts hide the loss easier.
I'd appreciate some suggestions on what procedure you would choose and why.

 

[Coopman]

Is it worth the consequences of having a strip scar just to save a bit of money?

My thoughts only. Whilst Strip is a perfectly plausible treatment it is inferior to FUE due to the scar.

Whilst 10yrs ago FUE did have a lower yield, I doubt that it is no longer the case provided you pick a good surgeon and not a hairmill.

Best wishes

 

[bullitnut]

Coopman raises some good points. To add i personally think that younger men in general like yourself usually at some point like to have a shorter buzzed back and sides look, compared to older gentleman who usually wear their hair a little longer.....if you have FUT then it will limit this option for you and you won't be able to go too short without the Scar being noticeable.

 

[VK1]

I'm thinking along the same line as you guys, although I'm seeing some tidy fut scars that would allow a very short hair cut. I normally have a grade 4 cut, maybe it's too much risk having fut. Decisions decisions!

 

[bullitnut]

If you wear your hair a grade four then it could still be visible depending on the quality of the scar though.

 

[David Anderson]

You raise some very valid points. The yield between FUT and FUE in the right hands for the right candidate is so marginal that it should not be a deciding factor.

Norwood 3 that is stable, needing just hairline work would lead me to think that FUE would be better for you now. If you did go on to loose more hair in the future then you could still switch to FUT but perhaps you will not need to if your loss is stable and no signs of miniaturization are present elsewhere.

With FUE you can target the softer hairs for the hairline to provide a very natural look and you can take extract the actual number of hairs that you need for the area. With FUT you get the number of hairs that the strip gives you so the numbers are not always as accurate.


I would advise some in person consultations as photos only tell part of the story. I see so many patients that don't think they have thinning elsewhere as it is difficult to assess the back of your head. A good Doctor will look closely at your hair for miniaturization and hair groupings in the consultation and design a hairline for you.

Good luck and let me know if I can help further.

 

[VK1]

I'll definitely research all the facts and have some consultations.

 

[Canadian Institute of Hair]

FUT vs. FUE

FUE:

Leaves behind visible scars (small dots)
Results may not be permanent
Transplants hair from all over the scalp
Costly
Inferior graft quality
Donor locations left visibly bald
Risk of sub-optimal growth
Less recovery time
Less discomfort
80% success rate

FUT:

Hair extracted from healthy scalp area
Transplants hair from one area of scalp
100% success rate
Superior results than FUE
Less chances of future complications
Affordable
Not recommended for shorter hair cuts

If you ask me, I would say, go for FUT. There are downsides in both these treatments; however, FUT is the preferable choice.

 

[VK1]

Canadian Institute of Hair wrote:

FUT vs. FUE

FUE:

Leaves behind visible scars (small dots)
Results may not be permanent
Transplants hair from all over the scalp
Costly
Inferior graft quality
Donor locations left visibly bald
Risk of sub-optimal growth
Less recovery time
Less discomfort
80% success rate

FUT:

Hair extracted from healthy scalp area
Transplants hair from one area of scalp
100% success rate
Superior results than FUE
Less chances of future complications
Affordable
Not recommended for shorter hair cuts

If you ask me, I would say, go for FUT. There are downsides in both these treatments; however, FUT is the preferable choice.

I'm guessing you only do FUT procedures!

 

[Bigmac]

There have been some interesting debates about this very subject at this years ISHRS annual conference. I'll post about it shortly.

 

[JoeTillman]

FUE:Leaves behind visible scars (small dots)... TrueResults may not be permanent...No more likely than with FUT(FUSS)Transplants hair from all over the scalp...Kind of, depends on doctor.Costly...Not really. Inferior graft quality. Not necessarily.Donor locations left visibly bald...FalseRisk of sub-optimal growth...No more than with FUSSLess recovery time...TrueLess discomfort...Usually, not always.80% success rate...Says who? Based on what?FUT:Hair extracted from healthy scalp area...TrueTransplants hair from one area of scalp...False100% success rate...FALSESuperior results than FUE...Not really. Depends on clinic.Less chances of future complications...Absolutely FalseAffordable...Relative.Not recommended for shorter hair cuts...True